Syfte: Företags kassaflöden och vinster samt staters inkomster påverkas av hur mycket skatt som betalas av företag. Resultat i tidigare forskning om företagsstorlekens betydelse för effektiva skattesatser är motstridiga. Utelämnande av andra variabler som i vissa studier har visats ha signifikanta effekter på effektiva skattesatser kan vara en anledning till denna motstridighet. Sådan forskning har inte genomförts i Sverige enligt författarnas kännedom. Därför undersöks i denna studie effekterna av variabler som mäter storlek, skuldsättning, kapitalintensitet, forsknings- och utvecklingsintensitet samt lönsamhet på effektiva skattesatser hos företag med svensk företagsledning eller koncernledning. Syftet med detta är att ge en bild av vilka faktorer som kan förklara variationer mellan dessa företags skattebörda. Metod: Fem hypoteser om samband mellan variabler deduceras utifrån teorier och tidigare forskning. 3 593 kvantitativa observationer från 702 noterade företag och 6 år samlas in från databasen Retriever Business. Den longitudinella datan används i en regressionsanalys som testar de fem hypoteserna. Resultat: Denna studie bidrar med empiriskt bevis för ett positivt och signifikant samband mellan företagsstorlek och effektiva skattesatser. Däremot visas inte effekterna av skuldsättning, kapitalintensitet, FoU-intensitet och lönsamhet på effektiva skattesatser vara signifikanta. Slutsatser: Den slutsats som dras är att företagsstorlek är en indikation på storleken på effektiva skattesatser för företag med svensk företagsledning eller koncernledning. Teorin om politiska kostnader kan användas för att förklara sambandets riktning. / Aim: Cash flows and profits in firms as well as government revenue are affected by how much is paid in corporate taxes. Results in prior research concerning the effect of firm size on effective tax rates are inconsistent. Omitting other variables that have in some studies been proven to have significant effects on effective tax rates can be one cause of this inconsistency. Such research has not been conducted in Sweden to the extent of the authors’ knowledge. Therefore, this study examines the effects of variables that measure size, leverage, capital intensity, research and development intensity, and profitability on effective tax rates for firms with Swedish management or group management. The aim of this is describing which factors that can explain variations between these firms’ tax burdens. Method: Five hypotheses regarding associations between variables are deduced from theories and prior research. 3 593 quantitative observations from 702 publicly listed firms and 6 years are collected from the database Retriever Business. The longitudinal data is used in a regression analysis that tests the five hypotheses. Results: This study provides empirical evidence for a positive and significant association between firm size and effective tax rates. However, the effects of leverage, capital intensity, R&D intensity, and profitability on effective tax rates are not shown to be significant. Conclusions: It is concluded that firm size is an indicator of the size of effective tax rates for firms with Swedish management or group management. The political cost theory can be used in explaining the direction of the association.

It is a sandwich Thesis. The first and the second essay are joint works with my Supervisor, Dr. Ronald Balvers. The third essay is joint work with Fangxing Liu, a Ph.D. candidate (Finance) at DeGroote School of Business, where we have equally shared the work responsibility. / First essay deals with Productivity shocks. Productivity shocks transmitted from productivity leaders to trailing sectors are systematic sources of risk. Global technology and knowledge diffusion leads to predictable patterns in productivity dynamics across countries and industries. Productivity gaps determine the level of exposure to the systematic leader productivity shocks. Firms in a country-industry with larger productivity gaps relative to the world leader are more dependent on the leader's innovations compared to their own productivity improvements. They thus have higher loadings on the leader productivity shocks and higher average stock returns. For OECD panel data, a country-industry's productivity gap significantly predicts the stock returns of the country-industry: holding the quintile of country- industry portfolios with the largest gaps and shorting the quintile with the smallest gaps generates annual returns of 9.8% (6.7% after risk adjustment with standard factors). A factor associated with the productivity gap explains country-industry portfolio returns substantially better than standard factor models. Loadings on leader-country-productivity shocks are found to have substantial correlation with productivity gaps, and leader productivity shocks are more important for stock returns than idiosyncratic productivity shocks. These findings suggest that the productivity gaps and associated higher average returns are indeed tied to systematic risk. The second essay deals with Technology shocks. Technology shocks from technological frontier economies are a critical determinant of productivity shocks. These shocks spill over, pervading all lagging economies and are true systematic shocks. A country's aggregate technology gap with the frontier determines the potential for the systematic innovation shocks to affect it, but the country's absorption capacity determines its effective sensitivity to these shocks. We find conforming evidence that the technology gap, R&D intensity, and absorption capacity can explain stock returns. For OECD panel data, a one standard deviation increase in the technology gap increases excess stock returns by 0.578 percent per month. A one standard deviation increase in R&D intensity increases the excess return by 0.637 percent per month. An increase in absorption capacity of one standard deviation increases the excess return by 0.275 percent per month. When global FF factors are included, the results are diluted, which suggests that the FF factors may alias for the three variables associated with the systematic risk arising from frontier technology shocks. The third essay deals with Political risk. We find that the differences in Hassan et al. (2019) political Risk proxy derived from text processing of analyst transcripts can price cross-sectional returns after controlling for standard factor risks. A mimicking factor for the political risk measure, when added to the standard Fama French 5 factor model or the Q5 model, explains the test asset returns better than these models. In our limited sample, the changes in PRisk measure captures more information about political risk than the traditional measures from Baker et al. (2016), which suggests that one can start using changes in PRisk characteristic as a political risk proxy. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)